key quote "Another reason this was a curious trade is that it failed to address the Blues' real issue, which is to say that they're probably not doing enough offensively to convince anyone who's paying real attention that they're true contenders in the Western Conference, let alone for the Stanley Cup"

"the Blues get Miller and Ott, who presumably adds “grit” (and has a potentially negative impact on possession due to his not being very good), "

In reading his article it's pretty clear that he isn't following the Blues much.

The bullet points on this trade from someone who actually watches the Blues play and doesn't just look at metrics:

> Berglund is used wrong as a center>Stewart is a drifter not playing to his potential>Halak has injury history - his groin could explode at any moment, why do you think Buffalo has him as a backup until he can be traded again?>Halak just came off a shitty performance in the Olympics (he was BAD)>Halak has played so few playoff games in STL that he's an unknown

> Miller won a Vezina>Miller is a gamer - See his olympic performance and his work ethic on a shitty, shitty Buffalo team (for years!)>Ott is being used wrong in Buffalo (stats linky - and the whole argument against the trade is based off those stats. We aren't asking him to play career high minutes as a shutdown center - we already have that covered, but that's exactly what he's been doing in Buffalo. He's not that good, we know it and don't have that expectation.>Ott is a gamer - he's universally respected for his work ethic, nasty edge, and heart>Clearing Stew and his salary increases flexibility (more trades coming?) and opens a second line spot on the wing for any number of more consistent, defensively committed players

key quote "Another reason this was a curious trade is that it failed to address the Blues' real issue, which is to say that they're probably not doing enough offensively to convince anyone who's paying real attention that they're true contenders in the Western Conference, let alone for the Stanley Cup"

My counter to this...

Presently the Blues rank 3rd in Goals Per Game at 3.22 behind Chicago (3.36) and Anaheim (3.23) and in front of the likes of Pittsburgh (3.13), Boston (3.12), Colorado (3.03), and San Jose (2.89).

And in the plain ol' Goals For category, the Blues rank 3rd with 193 behind Chicago (208) and Anaheim (200).

How is this not 'doing enough offensively?' The Blues are literally doing almost the best in the league offensively in every category. Mind you, in overall goals for, the Blues have 2 games in hand on both Chicago and Anaheim. No, they probably won't score 15 goals in 2 games to match Chicago, but could they score 7 in 2 games? Sure.

Point is, so many people think the Blues 'need' offense because we don't have an Ovechkin, Crosby, Kane, Toews, Thornton, etc. What they don't think about is that we've got scoring up and down the roster, as evidenced by the Blues being near the top in how many double digit goal scorers they have.

Where in these stats does it say the Blues need to do more offensively? (More of a question to Ryan Lambert than anyone, but still...)

Since averages may be misleading as scoring goes in ebbs and flows, here are a few more metrics that show how similar the Blues are to Ducks, Hawks, Kings and Sharks. In fact (and I totally didn't expect this), it shows that Blues are on average, more prolific than the other four teams. While goaltending problems is not a direct conclusion, what we can say is that Blues' offense is not an issue this year and they lose to the Ducks, the Kings and the Sharks because of other factors. Blues' offense may struggle against the Ducks, Kings and Sharks but I would argue that it is mostly due to an extremely physical forecheck of these teams that we cannot match or find a way around.

% Shutouts represent % games in which teams listed scored 0 goals (so shutout defeats or 0-0 draws). I used the results from the schedule and decreased goals scored by 1 in an event of a shootout win. The remaining rows are similar in that they represent % games with certain number of goals scored.

I decreased goals scored by 1 for shootout wins, so this represents total goals scored.

Feel free to poke holes in this analysis. There are bound to be some... Blues just can't be that good offensively.

This might have been posted some where in here before, but this would be crazy awesome to trade the first round pick.

Quote:

As for trading Ryan Miller to St. Louis, Buffalo gets the Blues' 2014 first-round pick if Miller re-signs before the June draft or if they win two playoff rounds. Satirist extraordinaire Down Goes Brown wondered if the Blues can still trade that pick, assuming neither condition is met. Research indicates the answer is yes. Sort of. Let's assume -- and I'm totally making up this scenario -- St. Louis trades that 2014 first-rounder for Thomas Vanek of the New York Islanders. Before that move would be approved, there must be a written guarantee of what the Islanders would get should Buffalo's conditions occur.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum